A math degree would require less laboratory classes and less projects. You could do the studying to learn u/g level mathematical concepts at your own time and you would mostly have to worry about homeworks, midterms and exams and not so much about big (team) projects.

Projects in CS curriculums are extremely time-consuming. And most importantly, after all these years of s/w engineering experience, you don't need them. You have already acquired most of or more than the skills that these classes are designed to teach.

On the other hand, what you most likely lack is formal CS theory training. Being able to grasp deep algorithmic and complexity concepts, discrete math, numerical analysis, linear algebra, data structures etc would undoubtedly help you become a better engineer.

So my suggestion is a Math degree with as many CS theory courses as possible. Keep in mind that some of them will have projects, e.g., numerical analysis or algorithms, but those projects will actually teach _you_ something and are usually not as time consuming as big S/W engineering design and analysis or compilers projects.

Absolutely not. You don't need to differentiate packet based on content, source or destination to provide CDN services.

You just need to build a CDN, i.e., caches, mechanisms for content replication close to its destinations etc etc.

Akamai does not need Telcos to differentiate packets for its CDN to work. Similarly Telco CDNs do not imply that Telcos differentiate packets.

If I am still not understood, here is the wikipedia definition to make it easier for you.

"A content delivery network or content distribution network (CDN) is a system of computers containing copies of data, placed at various points in a network so as to maximize bandwidth for access to the data from clients throughout the network. A client accesses a copy of the data near to the client, as opposed to all clients accessing the same central server, so as to avoid bottlenecks near that server."

Similar to those deployed by Akamai and Limelight for their customers, and by Google and Microsoft for themselves.

A typical case of a Telco moving into an additional market.Arguably, it does allow BT to offer multi-tier services. But it is not packet-level differentiationin the network, which is the issue at the heart of the net-neutrality debate.

If Content Distribution Networks violate net neutrality and the/. crowd thinks so, thenwe should be blasting Akamai and Google long time before we started blasting the Telcos.

An anonymous reader writes: A university in Australia has come up with some interesting research. After looking at more than a million BitTorrent files, they've come to the conclusion that 89% percent of the files infringe copyright on one level or another. However, it looks like people are mainly downloading a small core of content — just 15,000 torrents (4 percent or so) were responsible for 90 percent of seeders. The full report is available online for downloading, and contains a lot of interesting insights about the BitTorrent universe. It looks like they mainly analysed files through the Torrentz.com meta-search engine, which can search a bunch of different BitTorrent sites.Link to Original Source

"You wonder if our technology is developing faster than our enlightenment? We already have enough weapons to kill everybody on the planet 100 times over, and our top priority is watching "Jersey Shore"... does that answer your question?"

It is very simple really. ISPs in the densely populated EU quickly figured out that if they don't restrict internetaccess to the paying customers, many other users from the nearby apartments/townhouses will free-ride.

So, they simply sell the model and the wireless router as one package, with a passcode that is setup by the ISPand printed on the back of the router.

It is not that European users or ISPs are more aware of security. It is because ISPs want to make sure peopledo not free-ride on their services, and that the users do not have to set up themselves the security of their wireless router.

If you were aiming to credit people with substantial influence in the business part of IT, then why did you omit:Bob Young & Marc Ewing (Red Hat founders) and Larry Page & Sergey Brin (Google founders).

This is just a list of nobodies (OSS-wise) that at some point in their life decided to use OSS in their business... This is insulting really. Please no moreof these self-validation articles!